BackgroundTo capture various social determinants of health, recent analyses have used comprehensive measures of socioeconomic disadvantage such as deprivation and vulnerability indices. Given that studies evaluating the effects of social deprivation on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have yielded mixed results, a systematic review of this relationship might help answer questions about usage, complications, and results after surgery among patients in different socioeconomic groups and help guide targeted approaches to ensure health equity.Questions/purposesWe asked: How is social deprivation associated with TJA (1) usage, (2) adverse events including discharge deposition and length of stay, and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)?MethodsA comprehensive review of the PubMed, EBSCO host, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases was conducted to identify all studies that evaluated social deprivation and TJA between January 1, 2000, and March 1, 2022. Studies were included if they evaluated comprehensive measures of socioeconomic deprivation rather than individual social determinants of health. Nineteen articles were included in our final analysis with a total of 757,522 patients. In addition to characteristics of included studies (such as patient population, procedure evaluated, and utilized social deprivation metric), we recorded TJA usage, adverse events, and PROM values as reported by each article. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The mean ± SD MINORS score was 13 ± 1 of 16, with higher scores representing better study quality. All the articles included are noncomparative studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not performed and results were instead presented descriptively.ResultsAlthough there were inconsistencies among the included articles, higher levels of social deprivation were associated with lower TJA usage even after controlling for various confounding variables. Similarly, there was agreement among studies regarding higher proportion of nonhome discharge for patients with more social deprivation. Although there was limited agreement across studies regarding whether patients with more social deprivation had differences in their baseline and postoperative PROMs scores, patients with more social deprivation had lower improvements from baseline for most of the included articles.ConclusionThese findings encourage continued efforts focusing on appropriate patient education regarding expectations related to functional improvement and the postoperative recovery process, as well as resources available for further information and social support. We suggest linking patient data to deprivation measures such as the Area Deprivation Index to help encourage shared decision-making strategies that focus on health literacy and common barriers related to access. Given the potential influence social deprivation may have on the outcome and utilization of TJ...

Background Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies. Questions/purposes In this systematic review, we asked:(1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals?Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and followup. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 6 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Background The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently implemented price transparency legislation. As total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures are widely used, expensive, and generally are predictable in terms of cost and expected outcomes, these procedures are a proxy for assessing how hospitals provide price transparency for their services as a whole. Furthermore, cost estimates for TJA procedures represent some of the most commonly sought-after price transparency information among the orthopaedic surgery patient population. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) Are hospitals compliant with federal rules mandating transparency in pricing for primary TJA? (2) Are hospitals providing these data in a user-friendly format? (3) Is there a difference in prices quoted based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes compared with Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes? Methods Our cross-sectional retrospective analysis used the CMS's Hospital Compare database. This database includes information for 5326 Medicare hospitals nationally. We excluded children's, psychiatric, Veterans Affairs, and active military base hospitals as well as hospitals performing fewer than 100 TJAs annually. A total of 1719 hospitals remained after this selection process. Random sampling stratified across practice setting, hospital size, TJA volume, type, ownership, and Census region was performed to identify 400 facilities for our final analysis. Included hospitals were located predominately in urban areas (79% [317 of 400]) and were mostly medium-sized facilities (43% [171 of 400]). Most hospitals were classified as acute care (98% [392 of 400]) versus critical access. Three reviewers thoroughly searched each hospital website for a machine-readable file providing the following five datapoints: gross charges, payer-specific negotiated charges, deidentified minimum negotiated charges, deidentified maximum negotiated charges, and discounted cash prices. Hospitals that provided all five datapoints through a machine-readable file were considered compliant. Additionally, we considered hospitals with any gross price information pseudocompliant. The consumerfriendliness of the website was assessed based on the following criteria: (1) languages other than English were offered, (2) it took less than 15 minutes to locate pricing information, (3) a phone number or email address was provided for questions, and (4) there was a description of procedure in common terms. Pricing information was recorded and compared for CPT codes 27447 and 27130 and DRG codes 469 and 470. Data were sourced from One of the authors (AFK) certifies receipt of payments or benefits, during the study period, in an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson Company; in an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Zimmer Biomet; in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Innomed; in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Proctor and Gamble; and in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Signature Orthopaedics. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for autho...

Background: Markups on charges for medical services have the potential to result in "surprise billing," especially for out-of-network and uninsured patients. Although previously analyzed in other surgical subspecialties, the distribution and level of cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) for orthopaedic services have yet to be studied. Therefore, our analysis sought to evaluate the CCRs for orthopaedic surgery services provided to Medicare beneficiaries throughout the United States. Methods: Orthopaedic services provided to Medicare Part B beneficiaries between 2014 and 2019 were identified in the Physician & Other Practitioners database of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CCRs, representing the ratio between the actual payment provided by CMS and the charge submitted by the provider, were calculated for each service. Descriptive statistics were calculated for CCRs at the national, state, and service-code levels. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was utilized to evaluate variability in CCRs across services and states. Additionally, Mann-Kendall tests were performed to evaluate trends in CCRs for included services over the time frame. Results: Our analysis included an annual mean of 47,247,928 services provided by a mean of 23,185 orthopaedic surgeons over the study period. In the non-facility setting, there was a decrease in median CCRs for orthopaedic surgery services (0.29 to 0.27; p = 0.024). No changes were demonstrated for facility-based services. Service codes related to trigger finger procedures (0.18 to 0.17; p = 0.004), physical therapy (0.40 to 0.36; p = 0.035), and new patient visits (0.52 to 0.46; p = 0.035) demonstrated significant decreases in median CCRs. Only shoulder arthroscopy demonstrated a significant increase in median CCR (0.09 to 0.10; p = 0.003). High dispersion in CCRs was demonstrated for 16 (80%) of the 20 evaluated services. Wide variations in CCRs were demonstrated across individual states (median, 0.57; interquartile range width, 0.53). Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrated low and variable CCRs for commonly performed orthopaedic services in the U.S. These findings serve to inform and help improve related price transparency policies. Additionally, our analysis encourages increased efforts at preventing these low CCRs from limiting care in vulnerable populations.In the United States, the cost associated with hospital services varies widely depending on patient insurance type and network status 1,2 . The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) determine the payments allowed for health-care services among their patients 1 . However, for privately insured patients receiving out-of-network services and uninsured patients, the Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H240).

No abstract